The Money Mustache Community

Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: kendallf on February 05, 2013, 06:34:21 PM

Title: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: kendallf on February 05, 2013, 06:34:21 PM
So I'm on a training ride, going hard near my house today.  I'm on a slight downhill, nearing 30 mph. I see a giant SUV in the opposite turn lane, with a woman driving. I think, surely she sees me.. she proceeds to make a U-turn into both lanes of traffic and the bike lane. The SUV is so large she can't make the turn and comes to a stop.

I pile on the brakes so hard I'm skidding the rear and just barely manage to avoid her. I'm screaming, of course. She drives a few feet and stops in the lane. When I pull up beside her and call her stupid for risking my life, she screeches "I'm in a car! I have the right of way!"

No, you don't.  And I hope the kid in the car with you doesn't pick up your sense of reckless, stupid entitlement.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: marty998 on February 05, 2013, 06:41:22 PM
Most light aircraft have a turning circle smaller than that. How can an SUV doing a U turn parked across 2 lanes and a bike lane have any sort of right of way. WHat driving school did she go to

Idiot deserves a facepunch
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 05, 2013, 07:07:56 PM
WHat driving school did she go to
Nobody goes to driving school in the US. You only need a pulse and an even number of limbs to be allowed behind the wheel.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Self-employed-swami on February 05, 2013, 07:32:11 PM
From a purely physics standpoint, cars/SUVs/trucks ALWAYS have the right of way.  I am always shocked when people can't see me in my huge-o work truck, so I never expect people to see me when I am a pedestrian.

However, I'd have to put some rockets on my shoes to be able to go fast enough, to have trouble stopping, like you did ;)

I'm glad that you were able to stop, and yes, that woman was an idiot.

I would have been apologizing profusely if I were her.

I had an 'encounter' with a cyclist when I was driving my truck last year, and although it wasn't my fault, I still felt really bad.  I was sitting at a stop light, and the cyclist was leaning on the back passenger side of my truck (instead of putting both feet on the ground).  I was turning right (which is legal here on a red light), so when the traffic cleared, I shoulder-checked to make sure I wasn't going to hit anyone in my beast of a vehicle, and started to move forward.  I saw the cyclist at the rear on my right side when I looked, and he was clearly stopped, but I didn't notice that he was leaning on me, which was unfortunate, because he fell over on to the curb when I started to drive.  Another cyclist that was sitting on my driver's side started yelling at me, as soon as I drove, so I didn't run the guy over or anything, but I felt bad for him.  That being said, cyclists leaning on vehicles at stop lights isn't a common practice here. I've talked to a number of my cycling friends about it, and they all agree that it is a dangerous thing to do, and that it wasn't something I should have known to look for.

I try to be even more aware of cyclists since then; Some of them in our city don't pay any attention to traffic lights, and will come zooming out in between cars stopped at lights, and run through the intersection on a red light.  It always scares me when someone does that, because it would be much easier to get hit doing that.  I've seen a few near-misses with cyclists coming up the curb side past cars that are trying to turn right on red lights as well.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: sol on February 05, 2013, 08:30:01 PM
I no longer harbor any pretense that I have the right of way on my bike.  Too many homicidal drivers to be anything other than purely defensive at all times.   If you ride regularly in traffic in any major city, you will eventually get hit.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: marty998 on February 06, 2013, 12:26:11 AM
Sometimes I think cyclists are the proverbial "new kid at school" and have to be on their best behaviour, whereas car drivers can get away with anything.

The worst car drivers are not the blind as a bat ones who think they own the road. It is the idiots who think its fun to scare you by swerving dangerously close to you and pull out of the way at the last minute whilst their drunk idiot mates hang out the window laughing.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: sol on February 06, 2013, 01:34:42 AM
The worst car drivers are not the blind as a bat ones who think they own the road. It is the idiots who think its fun to scare you by swerving dangerously close to you and pull out of the way at the last minute whilst their drunk idiot mates hang out the window laughing.

I'm also a big fan of the lady who passes me every morning on my way to work; when she times it just right, she she can floor it off the red light at which we're both waiting, hit 35 mph in half a block, then slam on the brakes and cut in front of me to park in the alley at her favorite coffee shop.  This happens with sufficient regularity that it no longer surprises me.

I don't so much mind the occasional random shouting (e.g. "get off the road, hippie! roads are for cars!") because that I can shake off.  I mind the people who endanger my life by behaving in ways they would never even consider if I were in a car.

Last spring, on our city's "bike to work day" I was sitting with another cyclist at a red light on a one way street, when a city garbage truck made an illegal left turn onto my street going the wrong way.  He couldn't quite make the corner, so he rolls down the window and starts shouting at me to get out of his way and on to the sidewalk so he can finish his turn.  What are the odds that we would have asked a parked car to drive on the sidewalk so that he could make an illegal turn onto a one way street?

I wrote to my city councilman over that one.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: kendallf on February 06, 2013, 04:14:33 AM

I don't so much mind the occasional random shouting (e.g. "get off the road, hippie! roads are for cars!") because that I can shake off.  I mind the people who endanger my life by behaving in ways they would never even consider if I were in a car.

I keep a sense of humor about it most of the time; I ride too many miles to stay pissed over every incident.  The yelling ones are funny because most of the time I can only hear snatches of what they're saying anyway "..uck off the.." and I can play guessing games as to which cuss words they were shouting.

With the truly dangerous ones, the adrenaline rush makes getting angry almost unavoidable.  I can tell people about such incidents, and they play Monday morning quarterback, critiquing my responses, but it's much easier to be calm and rational when you haven't just had to dodge a serious accident at 30 mph.  :-)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Milkman666 on February 06, 2013, 06:47:07 AM
There's being right, and there's being dead. You gotta have yer head on a swivel out there!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jpo on February 06, 2013, 07:29:59 AM
My route includes crossing a major road. Last time I crossed it, I was first in line to go through the light. As the light turned green, I rode in the center of the lane straight through the intersection. The truck behind me decided to swerve around me to pass. :-/
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: zhelud on February 06, 2013, 07:35:24 AM
I have to say- I ride my bike to work almost every day and I encounter almost nothing but courtesy from drivers. They give me room when they pass, they wave me through intersections even when they don't have to, etc. I try to be as courteous as I can in return. There are always a few a-hole drivers - and bikers- but they are in the minority.

I do see a lot of distracted driving, though- texting, etc. Not good.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Khao on February 06, 2013, 07:50:09 AM
I've biked to work a whole summer and from my experience, the dangerous ones on the road are the cyclists, not the drivers!

Stop signs? Not for bikes, suckas!
Red lights? Don't even need to slow down
There is a bike lane but you prefer the sidewalk/the street? Sure, go ahead.
A ton of "I don't know how to ride a bike but I do it anyway"
Old lady in a wheelchair blocking the bike lane for everyone...

Montreal is very bike-friendly and so there are tons of cyclists on the roads and since I've done both bike to work and drive to work, I'd say that there is a higher ratio of douchebag cyclists than there are douchebag drivers in my city at least. I can't believe we don't have more bike-related death each year.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: venkol on February 06, 2013, 07:59:57 AM
I've biked to work a whole summer and from my experience, the dangerous ones on the road are the cyclists, not the drivers!

Stop signs? Not for bikes, suckas!
Red lights? Don't even need to slow down
There is a bike lane but you prefer the sidewalk/the street? Sure, go ahead.
A ton of "I don't know how to ride a bike but I do it anyway"
Old lady in a wheelchair blocking the bike lane for everyone...

Montreal is very bike-friendly and so there are tons of cyclists on the roads and since I've done both bike to work and drive to work, I'd say that there is a higher ratio of douchebag cyclists than there are douchebag drivers in my city at least. I can't believe we don't have more bike-related death each year.

This.  I feel bicyclist are much worse than drivers, especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic.  Cyclists also don't seem to understand that sometimes cars turn right and going full speed in the bike lane through the red light is bound up to get you hit.  I'm sure they would blame the driver as well.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Self-employed-swami on February 06, 2013, 08:14:33 AM
My route includes crossing a major road. Last time I crossed it, I was first in line to go through the light. As the light turned green, I rode in the center of the lane straight through the intersection. The truck behind me decided to swerve around me to pass. :-/

Uggh.  That makes me shiver!

I'm glad that I'm not the only person who feels like some cyclists are breaking the road rules though, by not obeying street signs and lights.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: mustachecat on February 06, 2013, 08:36:54 AM
I would love to bike to work, and it's totally doable distance-wise and most of the route is covered by bike lanes... but yeah, I can't get over the idea that biking in the city is a death wish.

Do y'all have ghost bikes where you live? It's where they paint bikes white and chain them up to near where cyclists were killed. I saw this one (http://ghostbikes.org/new-york-city/alexander-toulouse) last night--a little kid's bike, memorializing a little boy who was killed. (And yes, he had a parent with him, and yes, they had the right of way; it was a mail truck turning.) Chilling.

We also have a problem with rule-breaking cyclists, but assholes are universal.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Forcus on February 06, 2013, 09:23:31 AM

We also have a problem with rule-breaking cyclists, but assholes are universal.

This. And it applies to so many areas of life!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: destron on February 06, 2013, 09:26:07 AM

This.  I feel bicyclist are much worse than drivers, especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic. 

Cyclists have just as much legal right to be in the lane as you do.

going full speed in the bike lane through the red light is bound up to get you hit.

They also have to obey all rules of the road just like a car.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2013, 09:32:07 AM
I would love to bike to work, and it's totally doable distance-wise and most of the route is covered by bike lanes... but yeah, I can't get over the idea that biking in the city is a death wish.

Do y'all have ghost bikes where you live? It's where they paint bikes white and chain them up to near where cyclists were killed. I saw this one (http://ghostbikes.org/new-york-city/alexander-toulouse) last night--a little kid's bike, memorializing a little boy who was killed. (And yes, he had a parent with him, and yes, they had the right of way; it was a mail truck turning.) Chilling.

We also have a problem with rule-breaking cyclists, but assholes are universal.

There is some danger associated with cycling . . . but it's not huge.  You pay attention, follow the rules of the road, make yourself visible (reflectors and lights) and should be safe 99% of the time.  Just don't do unexpected stuff, and realize that car drivers are human and make mistakes.  You have to remember that we all have vivid images in our minds of the scary stuff that happens, but few of us remember the thousands of miles of uneventful cycling as clearly.  Biking in the city is not as risky as people like to make out.

I bike in the city to work a few times a week, and 98% of my route is on the road with no bike lanes.  I also bike when it's raining, snowing, foggy, and dark.  Not dead yet .  .  .
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jpo on February 06, 2013, 09:39:18 AM
There is a bike lane but you prefer the sidewalk/the street? Sure, go ahead.
This.  I feel bicyclist are much worse than drivers, especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic.
There are reasons for taking up the middle of the lane, like not getting sideswiped as someone tries to dangerously pass.

Quote from: http://bicyclesafe.com/
Take the whole lane when appropriate.
It's often safer to take the whole lane, or at least ride a little bit to the left, rather than hug the right curb. Here's why:

  • Cars at intersections ahead of you can see you better if you're squarely in the road rather than on the extreme edge where you're easily overlooked.
  • Taking the lane prevents cars from passing you too closely on narrow roadways.
  • Riding a bit to the left prevents you from being a victim of the door prize.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: BlueMR2 on February 06, 2013, 10:11:57 AM
I've biked to work a whole summer and from my experience, the dangerous ones on the road are the cyclists, not the drivers!

Stop signs? Not for bikes, suckas!
Red lights? Don't even need to slow down

I've quit doing group rides because of that.  These days I'll only ride solo or with trusted friends.  Unfortunately the bulk of the cyclists I've met have a complete disregard for the rules of the road.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 06, 2013, 10:26:13 AM

This.  I feel bicyclist are much worse than drivers, especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic. 

Cyclists have just as much legal right to be in the lane as you do.

going full speed in the bike lane through the red light is bound up to get you hit.

They also have to obey all rules of the road just like a car.

Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

(http://cdn.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/im-a-bus-im-a-bus-im-a-bus-gif.gif)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: destron on February 06, 2013, 11:02:28 AM
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

Not legally, they don't, but courtesy is definitely the best course of action for all people on the road. The delay caused by a bicycle seems longer than it really is because, once a car does pass a bicycle, they quickly catch up to the traffic ahead of them. There was no actual time lost. To quote labreform.org:

"The actual delay to traffic from a bicycle is almost always trivial.  Most traffic is able to pass with no impact other than slowing a bit and perhaps changing lanes.  Occasionally, a passing driver must wait a few seconds in order to fit a gap for safe passing.  Very rarely is the wait as much as 30 seconds.

Remember, the passing driver needs only to slow to the speed of the bicycle.  Typically, the bicycle is traveling at half the speed limit, so the delay is half what it seems.  Then after passing, the driver can go faster in the open space ahead of the bicycle.  Most soon catch up to their earlier place in the traffic queue.  This means the real delay is usually zero.

I often see someone pass me in a huff, and then shortly the brake lights come on as that driver catches up to other traffic.  The motorist will perceive that I caused a delay.  The reality is there was no delay.  The presence of my bicycle simply redistributed the delays already present due to the other traffic.

Both cyclists and motorists must use courtesy on the roads.  Better driving by all improves safety and allows efficient traffic flow."

Emphasis is mine. The worst bicyclists I see are usually teenagers on fixies (of course with no helmets). They often assume everyone is going to stop and do a really poor job of watching out for their own safety. I always assume that no one is going to stop, even if the light is turning red. I just assume that the first car is going to run the light and run me over.

I have also ridden out with critical mass around a dozen times. In my experience, the ratio is 1/2 bicycle enthusiasts/evangelists and 1/2 fixie teenagers. Some thuggery has occurred on the rides and it really turned me off to the organization.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: boy_bye on February 06, 2013, 11:32:08 AM
I have to say- I ride my bike to work almost every day and I encounter almost nothing but courtesy from drivers. They give me room when they pass, they wave me through intersections even when they don't have to, etc. I try to be as courteous as I can in return. There are always a few a-hole drivers - and bikers- but they are in the minority.

I do see a lot of distracted driving, though- texting, etc. Not good.

yes the texting/talking/drinking coffee and laughing while operating a machine capable of being a lethal weapon is terrifying!

i wonder, though, since your experience of bike riding seems like mine (people seem pretty respectful) -- are you a woman? because i've read about something called "the mary poppins effect," where people on bikes who are ladies / dressed in street clothes instead of biking gear / riding an upright bicycle get treated with a lot more respect than dudes / people on road bikes/ people who look like hardcore bikers.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tomsang on February 06, 2013, 12:45:17 PM


There is some danger associated with cycling . . . but it's not huge.  You pay attention, follow the rules of the road, make yourself visible (reflectors and lights) and should be safe 99% of the time.  Just don't do unexpected stuff, and realize that car drivers are human and make mistakes.

I hope it is better than 99% or those that are biking everyday are getting in 2-3 accidents a year:)

Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 06, 2013, 01:03:55 PM
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

Not legally, they don't, but courtesy is definitely the best course of action for all people on the road.

Wrong


    Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    —California Department of Motor Vehicles, CVC 21656, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles[14]
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: kendallf on February 06, 2013, 01:29:16 PM

There is some danger associated with cycling . . . but it's not huge.  You pay attention, follow the rules of the road, make yourself visible (reflectors and lights) and should be safe 99% of the time.  Just don't do unexpected stuff, and realize that car drivers are human and make mistakes.  You have to remember that we all have vivid images in our minds of the scary stuff that happens, but few of us remember the thousands of miles of uneventful cycling as clearly.  Biking in the city is not as risky as people like to make out.

This.

I ride between 8,000 and 10,000 miles per year, every year, and I have never been hit by a vehicle.  I have had several bad crashes, but they all involved other bikes while racing.  If you ride solo to commute or train, obey the rules of the road, use lights when it's dark, and generally use common sense, you'll be fine.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: zhelud on February 06, 2013, 01:35:13 PM
I have to say- I ride my bike to work almost every day and I encounter almost nothing but courtesy from drivers. They give me room when they pass, they wave me through intersections even when they don't have to, etc. I try to be as courteous as I can in return. There are always a few a-hole drivers - and bikers- but they are in the minority.

I do see a lot of distracted driving, though- texting, etc. Not good.

yes the texting/talking/drinking coffee and laughing while operating a machine capable of being a lethal weapon is terrifying!

i wonder, though, since your experience of bike riding seems like mine (people seem pretty respectful) -- are you a woman? because i've read about something called "the mary poppins effect," where people on bikes who are ladies / dressed in street clothes instead of biking gear / riding an upright bicycle get treated with a lot more respect than dudes / people on road bikes/ people who look like hardcore bikers.

I'm a woman, but in the winter when I'm on my bike in 20 layers you probably can't tell.

I think part of the Mary Poppins effect is that you have to be bareheaded with long flowing hair and a nice outfit- which isn't me in the summer either.

I see lots of drivers who are courteous to male bicyclists too.  I really worry more about inattention among drivers than malice or rudeness. Everybody please stop texting!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: destron on February 06, 2013, 02:11:19 PM
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

Not legally, they don't, but courtesy is definitely the best course of action for all people on the road.

Wrong

No need to be rude.



    Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles

    21656. On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
    —California Department of Motor Vehicles, CVC 21656, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles[14]

You didn't say that. You said that a bicycle can't be in the lane on the road if there are 5 or more vehicles behind it, which is incorrect. That is only true on a two-lane highway where it is unsafe to pass because of traffic on the opposite direction. Additionally, the bicyclist only has to pull over when there is a safe place to do so. They can then continue in the lane.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: strider3700 on February 06, 2013, 02:13:16 PM
A guy stepped out in front of my truck today.   He had right of way.  I didn't see him.  Had I not stopped in time I'd be wrong and he'd be dead.  I'm not a fan of putting blame on pedestrian's/bikers but the consequences are so out of balance  they really do need to take self preservation into account.    When on my motorcycle I had to radically change my understanding of the laws on the road as I had numerous instances of I was in the right but could have easily died had I not avoided other drivers.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: secondcor521 on February 06, 2013, 02:48:12 PM
This.  I feel bicyclist are much worse than drivers, especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic.

For what it's worth, this is perfectly legal cycling behavior in the state of Idaho.  It is also recommended practice as a matter of cycling safety -- riding on the shoulder of the traffic lane unfortunately encourages unsafe passing practices by the cars on the road and is a good way to get clipped and crushed.

2Cor521
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: ladycygnus on February 06, 2013, 03:19:28 PM
When I first started commuting to work I thought I was being safe by going down the sidewalk and got smacked by a car...not hard, but enough to get my adrenalin pumping. It was mostly an encouragement to learn real bike safety (like that MMM post where he says to NOT buy bigger pants because the tight ones will encourage better eating). That website bicyclesafe.com really helped.

Quote
especially when they are cycling in the middle of the road pretending they are a car and back up traffic. 

This is actually something I do frequently at several locations. I've avoided smacking into someone getting out of a parked car and a parked car that was suddenly ON AND MOVING HOLY CRAP. I also will take the lane on a small curvy downhill road with no shoulder, especially the one my house is on as I'm going the speed limit and about to make a left turn - so be patient and don't try to pass me!

Although, I admit, I usually only slow down at stop signs whenever possible...especially going up hill. Lights I always stop for red lights, but will run them if I'm alone and they don't turn since almost every light here has those weight sensors that a bike can't hope to trigger.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Jack on February 06, 2013, 03:55:37 PM
Although, I admit, I usually only slow down at stop signs whenever possible...especially going up hill. Lights I always stop for red lights, but will run them if I'm alone and they don't turn since almost every light here has those weight sensors that a bike can't hope to trigger.

They're not weight sensors, they're induction sensors. Look for one of the longitudinal saw cuts in the pavement and put the bike directly over it. If there are three saw cuts, pick the center one. If it still doesn't work, try lying the bike down parallel to the road.

See this article (http://www.labreform.org/education/loops.html) for more information.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: smalllife on February 06, 2013, 05:06:40 PM
I have to say- I ride my bike to work almost every day and I encounter almost nothing but courtesy from drivers. They give me room when they pass, they wave me through intersections even when they don't have to, etc. I try to be as courteous as I can in return. There are always a few a-hole drivers - and bikers- but they are in the minority.


i wonder, though, since your experience of bike riding seems like mine (people seem pretty respectful) -- are you a woman? because i've read about something called "the mary poppins effect," where people on bikes who are ladies / dressed in street clothes instead of biking gear / riding an upright bicycle get treated with a lot more respect than dudes / people on road bikes/ people who look like hardcore bikers.

The Mary Poppins Effect is one of the reasons I keep my bulky baskets on my bike (the others are that they are  pain to take on and off and make my bike look wider than it is.  Very few people want to scratch their paint.).  I'm lucky in that my commute is mostly through a college area with lots of bikers/pedestrians, and down a street known for it's bike friendliness - wide lanes (enough to be out of reach of opening doors and not impede traffic too much), low car traffic, and few stoplights.  I admit to doing rolling stops through the stop signs, but I always double check before proceeding. 
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: amustache on February 06, 2013, 06:15:37 PM
Destron has been right on. Common sense is going to win the day all the time.

That being said, let's not overthink things and become like a bunch of Laputa dwellers (an island in Gulliver's Travels where people have thought themselves to insanity). If nobody is around, it is okay to roll through a stop sign or red light SLOWLY. This means SLOW DOWN and take a GOOD look around to make sure you don't have to stop completely. These have been put up to calm automobile traffic, not bicycles (this can be a whole different thread) so it's fine to treat them as yield signs. Making a full stop and contorting your bike like a balloon ornament to get a light is a waste of time and energy.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 06, 2013, 06:41:30 PM

No need to be rude.

...

You said that a bicycle can't be in the lane on the road if there are 5 or more vehicles behind it, which is incorrect.

Wrong.

No, I didn't say that.  I apologize if my curt reply sounded harsh.  I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: ladycygnus on February 06, 2013, 07:03:12 PM

They're not weight sensors, they're induction sensors. Look for one of the longitudinal saw cuts in the pavement and put the bike directly over it. If there are three saw cuts, pick the center one. If it still doesn't work, try lying the bike down parallel to the road.

See this article (http://www.labreform.org/education/loops.html) for more information.

Wow, learn something new everyday! That explains why the light would sometimes trigger with no cars around, I had always thought someone had just run the light or turned right. Thanks for the info :)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: crazy jane on February 06, 2013, 08:45:37 PM
Thanks for the info. Looking forward to putting it to good use tomorrow.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 09, 2013, 07:35:40 AM
No, I didn't say that.  I apologize if my curt reply sounded harsh.  I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.
Isn't applying California state law to at least two nations' worth of cyclists inaccurate legal advice? That's not how the law works in Ohio, and I seriously doubt it's how the law works in Newfoundland.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: TwoWheels on February 10, 2013, 11:11:16 AM

I don't so much mind the occasional random shouting (e.g. "get off the road, hippie! roads are for cars!") because that I can shake off.  I mind the people who endanger my life by behaving in ways they would never even consider if I were in a car.

I keep a sense of humor about it most of the time; I ride too many miles to stay pissed over every incident.  The yelling ones are funny because most of the time I can only hear snatches of what they're saying anyway "..uck off the.." and I can play guessing games as to which cuss words they were shouting.

Yep, laughing it off is the way to go. It really is funny just how clueless some of those people are. Recently I passed two pedestrians and one of them said "hey I'm gonna ride my bike on the road and be really oblivious". Which is funny because I saw them well in advance and gave them plenty of space (and wasn't even going fast). Not sure what that was about, but you're not in the position to act superior if you're the one walking in the middle of an unlit road at night.

My favorite one, though, was when an SUV whizzed past and all I heard was "...HOMOSEXUAL..."
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: BlueMR2 on February 10, 2013, 11:17:15 AM
Isn't applying California state law to at least two nations' worth of cyclists inaccurate legal advice? That's not how the law works in Ohio, and I seriously doubt it's how the law works in Newfoundland.

In Ohio it looks like we're not even instructing people right.  There were a number of cycling law changes a few years back.  I just went and got my motorcycle temps a few months ago and studied the "current" Ohio handbook.  Apparently it's not been updated.  The part pertaining to interaction with bicyclists still reflects the laws as they stood before those "recent" changes of a few years ago!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 11, 2013, 12:15:11 PM
No, I didn't say that.  I apologize if my curt reply sounded harsh.  I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.
Isn't applying California state law to at least two nations' worth of cyclists inaccurate legal advice? That's not how the law works in Ohio, and I seriously doubt it's how the law works in Newfoundland.

Who said anything about "two nations," Ohio, or Newfoundland?  The inaccurate legal advice was destron's blanket statement that you do not legally have to pull over.  I cited one counterexample (from California), which is sufficient to invalidate the blanket statement.

We do have California readers here who may have been misled to break the law.

Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: destron on February 11, 2013, 02:51:30 PM
No, I didn't say that.  I apologize if my curt reply sounded harsh.  I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.
Isn't applying California state law to at least two nations' worth of cyclists inaccurate legal advice? That's not how the law works in Ohio, and I seriously doubt it's how the law works in Newfoundland.

Who said anything about "two nations," Ohio, or Newfoundland?  The inaccurate legal advice was destron's blanket statement that you do not legally have to pull over.  I cited one counterexample (from California), which is sufficient to invalidate the blanket statement.

We do have California readers here who may have been misled to break the law.

You are simply wrong, even about California. I am a police officer in CA and I worked on a bike for three years. The times when you cannot ride in the lane are few and far between. 99% of the time it is completely legal. You need to have a more careful reading of the vehicle code section you cited.

Additionally, it is wrong to quote one state's law to prove your point. CA is only 10% of the US population, and that doesn't account for foreign countries.

Bicycles are considered vehicles. They are subject to all rules and regulations of the road. They are allowed to take a lane.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: CptPoo on February 13, 2013, 02:24:20 PM
I'll share one little story.

I used to ride about 2.5 miles from my apartment to school and there were a couple of moderately busy roads that I rode down that had no shoulder, so I used the tactic of riding in the middle of the lane. This worked out pretty well most of the time until I had a very impatient elderly man in a beater truck attempt to fly by me less than 25 yards from a stop sign. It just so happens that someone was turning towards us from that very same intersection and I watched, slightly amused, as this man avoided collision through a combination of slamming on his breaks, swerving, and flooring it to get out of the way. I caught up to him at the intersection only for him to lean out of his window and yell something at me in a very thick Midwestern mumble.

I have no idea what he said to me, so I just gave him a smile and a wave and went on my way.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: FitStash on February 13, 2013, 03:07:25 PM
  When on my motorcycle I had to radically change my understanding of the laws on the road as I had numerous instances of I was in the right but could have easily died had I not avoided other drivers.

I had to do the same thing when I started riding my motorcycle.  I assumed that every person on the road was actively trying to kill me.  And it saved my life a number of times.

That lady at the stop sign?  She's gonna wait until the worst time, then pull out to kill me. 

That guy in the lane next to me?  I bet he changes lanes really fast with no signal to catch me off guard.

You get the idea.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 13, 2013, 03:15:01 PM

You are simply wrong, even about California. I am a police officer in CA and I worked on a bike for three years. The times when you cannot ride in the lane are few and far between. 99% of the time it is completely legal. You need to have a more careful reading of the vehicle code section you cited.

Additionally, it is wrong to quote one state's law to prove your point. CA is only 10% of the US population, and that doesn't account for foreign countries.

Bicycles are considered vehicles. They are subject to all rules and regulations of the road. They are allowed to take a lane.

That's my point.  Bicycles are vehicles and thus have to pull over according to the same rules for cars (i.e., under the circumstances cited in CVC 21656).  The difference is that a bicycle is more likely than a car to be traveling too slow.

It is not wrong to make any correct statement of law, when it's clear what jurisdiction that law applies to.  What is wrong is to make incorrect blanket statements such as "Not legally, they don't" where your are not considering that there are jurisdictions (including yours, apparently) in which, legally, they in fact do.  In logic, proof by counterexample is sufficient -- I don't have to cite the law for every jurisdiction in existence, just one.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample))

I don't know what your personal experience is in CA, but the times I've seen motorists angry at cyclists are exactly the situations in CVC 21656.  Otherwise they will easily just pass the cyclists.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: uspsfanalan on February 19, 2013, 08:31:52 AM
Good idea on the smile and wave. I've done that before and it works well. I tend to get really angry at drivers when I'm on my bike and it ruins the ride for me. Usually I let it go but I've snapped on occasion. Six months ago some lady in a Mercedes laid on her horn at me for a solid 5 seconds. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I flipped her off. That's dumb on so many levels that I've been disappointed and angry at myself every time I think of it. I've actually avoided biking almost entirely since then. I mostly ride to places that I can get to by the bike path near my house. I'm reluctant to go back on the streets and face traffic for fear that I will do something stupid again and the situation would escalate. It sucks because I used to really enjoy biking.

A few years ago I lived 6 miles from my office and worked 12:30 PM to 9 PM. I biked to work three days a week and loved it.

I'd like to start biking again. Any tips on getting back in the saddle?
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Khao on February 19, 2013, 08:54:59 AM
I'd like to start biking again. Any tips on getting back in the saddle?

Step 1. Take your bike outside
Step 2. Ride your bike
Step 3. Do not give a fuck about other crazy people
Step 4. Enjoy your stress-free ride

http://inoveryourhead.net/the-complete-guide-to-not-giving-a-fuck/
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tooqk4u22 on February 19, 2013, 11:28:04 AM

You are simply wrong, even about California. I am a police officer in CA and I worked on a bike for three years. The times when you cannot ride in the lane are few and far between. 99% of the time it is completely legal. You need to have a more careful reading of the vehicle code section you cited.

Additionally, it is wrong to quote one state's law to prove your point. CA is only 10% of the US population, and that doesn't account for foreign countries.

Bicycles are considered vehicles. They are subject to all rules and regulations of the road. They are allowed to take a lane.

That's my point.  Bicycles are vehicles and thus have to pull over according to the same rules for cars (i.e., under the circumstances cited in CVC 21656).  The difference is that a bicycle is more likely than a car to be traveling too slow.

It is not wrong to make any correct statement of law, when it's clear what jurisdiction that law applies to.  What is wrong is to make incorrect blanket statements such as "Not legally, they don't" where your are not considering that there are jurisdictions (including yours, apparently) in which, legally, they in fact do.  In logic, proof by counterexample is sufficient -- I don't have to cite the law for every jurisdiction in existence, just one.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample))

I don't know what your personal experience is in CA, but the times I've seen motorists angry at cyclists are exactly the situations in CVC 21656.  Otherwise they will easily just pass the cyclists.

Over the weekend I was in the car travelling down a two lane road and happen to come upon a bicycle rider in the lane - normally would just go around but it was two lane road with on-coming traffic.  Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road (btw it was 45mph speed limit) - but here is the rub, there was a paved and clear shoulder that was almost as wide as the part of the road that is to be driven on and he would not move into it.

I am all for respecting bicyclists but I was ready to run him down, it is just rude and arrogant to act like this. There are two rules of the road - the legal ones and the commonly understood ones.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 19, 2013, 11:31:42 AM
Shoulders are often filled with a lot more gravel and glass than you would think from looking at it in a car. And, to be clear, the bicycle owns the road the same amount you do.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 19, 2013, 12:00:01 PM
Yup, it's a tough call. If I have to use the lane because the shoulder is too narrow or filled with trash, I typically try to remain roughly where a car's right tires are in the lane. Blinking red LED, even in broad daylight, and I try my darnest to be going 20+ mph at the very least.

In my opinion it's the perfect safety balance: motorists to speed past you too closely like they would if you were on a very narrow shoulder, yet don't get too mad about having to slow down because it appears that you are trying your best not to bother them too much.

A 45mph road is where I go borderline uncomfortable though. I can stomach angry jackasses in a 35 zone day in and day out, but it takes just one asshole blasting/honking past at 50mph to piss me off for the rest of the day.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tooqk4u22 on February 19, 2013, 12:02:11 PM
Shoulders are often filled with a lot more gravel and glass than you would think from looking at it in a car. And, to be clear, the bicycle owns the road the same amount you do.

First - I am familiar with the road and have biked on it, so that is not an issue, it would be different if there was no where to go.  And I call bullshit to bikes owning a road equally with cars, there is a difference, but they both need to be mindful and respectful with one another.  Separately, if cars are not keeping up with the speed limit they are supposed to pull aside and let traffic pass too - so my comment applies to all - its just in this case the ass was on a bike, he wasn't even doing his best to hug the line. 

Being an ass is not justification. 
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 19, 2013, 12:20:29 PM
That's certainly not the law here for bikes OR cars. And legally, a bike is a vehicle, so the only difference I can see is your patience with them.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tooqk4u22 on February 19, 2013, 01:05:25 PM
That's certainly not the law here for bikes OR cars. And legally, a bike is a vehicle, so the only difference I can see is your patience with them.

I think you may be wrong, most states (including yours) do have laws that require slow moving vehicles to move as far right as possible without jeopardizing safety (this includes the shoulder but does not mean hugging the curb or riding through debris) so that other vehicles may pass safely.

It is also an unwritten rule that falls under common courtesy/sense.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 19, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
Six months ago some lady in a Mercedes laid on her horn at me for a solid 5 seconds. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I flipped her off. That's dumb on so many levels that I've been disappointed and angry at myself every time I think of it. I've actually avoided biking almost entirely since then.

I flip people off all the time on my bike, literally once a week the bird is coming out.  I was not aware that I should feel shame for this. 

Someone does something stupid (and maybe dangerous in your case). Fuck you horn honker!  Someone yells something out the window because I can't catch them?  Fuck you drive away yeller!  Some pedestrian makes a comment as I zip past them on a bike/pedestrian lane?  Fuck you lane hogger, pay attention next time and maybe you'll hear me saying "on your left" 30 times while braking. 

I find that flipping people off is both fulfilling and allows me to correct the asinine behavior of others with very little effort.  It lets me say "hey douchebag, I don't appreciate what you just did, it isn't acceptable in a civilized society... yep, you just got flipped off my a guy on a bike and there is nothing you can do about it."   
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Spork on February 19, 2013, 01:33:47 PM
Six months ago some lady in a Mercedes laid on her horn at me for a solid 5 seconds. I'm embarrassed to admit it but I flipped her off. That's dumb on so many levels that I've been disappointed and angry at myself every time I think of it. I've actually avoided biking almost entirely since then.

I flip people off all the time on my bike, literally once a week the bird is coming out.  I was not aware that I should feel shame for this. 

Someone does something stupid (and maybe dangerous in your case). Fuck you horn honker!  Someone yells something out the window because I can't catch them?  Fuck you drive away yeller!  Some pedestrian makes a comment as I zip past them on a bike/pedestrian lane?  Fuck you lane hogger, pay attention next time and maybe you'll hear me saying "on your left" 30 times while braking. 

I find that flipping people off is both fulfilling and allows me to correct the asinine behavior of others with very little effort.  It lets me say "hey douchebag, I don't appreciate what you just did, it isn't acceptable in a civilized society... yep, you just got flipped off my a guy on a bike and there is nothing you can do about it."   

Feeling shame is probably the wrong word here.   

[Let me preface this by the fact that I am as guilty of this as you of any of these "offenses".]

So, yeah, there isn't anything anybody can legally do about it.  But the problem here is that there is a small subset of crazy assholes in the world that will go outside the legal system.  Not the majority.  But eventually, you'll meet them.

I've had (full) beer bottles chucked at me.  I've been physically threatened.  I've had cars swerved at me.... and this isn't on a bike.  This is in a car.  The reality here is that you may be able to inscribe "I was in the right of way" on your tombstone.

When it happens to me and I react with the bird (or any other ragey things) ... I don't necessarily feel any better. 

...just sayin'.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 19, 2013, 01:48:59 PM

Feeling shame is probably the wrong word here.   

[Let me preface this by the fact that I am as guilty of this as you of any of these "offenses".]

So, yeah, there isn't anything anybody can legally do about it.  But the problem here is that there is a small subset of crazy assholes in the world that will go outside the legal system.  Not the majority.  But eventually, you'll meet them.

I've had (full) beer bottles chucked at me.  I've been physically threatened.  I've had cars swerved at me.... and this isn't on a bike.  This is in a car.  The reality here is that you may be able to inscribe "I was in the right of way" on your tombstone.

When it happens to me and I react with the bird (or any other ragey things) ... I don't necessarily feel any better. 

...just sayin'.

yeah, I hear that "but people are crazy" line all the time.  I guess I just grew up wrong, or maybe it is because I deal with crazy criminals all the time, but I have very little fear of other people hurting me.  I don't let "but someone might try to kill you if you confront their wrongness" dictate my behavior.  How do they know I am not one of those crazy people when they honk at me?  I don't go out of my way to retaliate, but if someone does something for the sole purpose of being a jerk, they are going to hear about it from me.  If they want to escalate it from there, I will deal with that then... it hasn't happened yet in over 100 middle fingers elevated. 
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Spork on February 19, 2013, 02:07:13 PM
[ it hasn't happened yet in over 100 middle fingers elevated.

100?  Amateur!  ;)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 19, 2013, 05:35:36 PM
most states
Weaselly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word).

Quote from: tooq
(including yours) do have laws that require slow moving vehicles to move as far right as possible without jeopardizing safety (this includes the shoulder but does not mean hugging the curb or riding through debris)
Wrong.
Quote from: ORC 4511.25
(B)

(1) Upon all roadways any vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding at less than the prevailing and lawful speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, and far enough to the right to allow passing by faster vehicles if such passing is safe and reasonable, except under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle or trackless trolley proceeding in the same direction ;

(b) When preparing for a left turn;

(c) When the driver must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on the driver’s intended route.
(2) Nothing in division (B)(1) of this section requires a driver of a slower vehicle to compromise the driver’s safety to allow overtaking by a faster vehicle.

Or, let's get more explicit. What is required of cyclists?
Quote from:  ORC 4511.5
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

And don't get wishy-washy on the definition of the roadway. The code clearly excludes the shoulder:
Quote from: ORC 4511.01EE
“Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, except the berm or shoulder

Quote
It is also an unwritten rule that falls under common courtesy/sense.
Common courtesy yields to both the law and the immediate need of the cyclist for physical safety. Sorry.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Undecided on February 19, 2013, 05:49:07 PM
They're not weight sensors, they're induction sensors. Look for one of the longitudinal saw cuts in the pavement and put the bike directly over it. If there are three saw cuts, pick the center one. If it still doesn't work, try lying the bike down parallel to the road.
See this article (http://www.labreform.org/education/loops.html) for more information.

I don't think I should have to get off my bike and lay it down---if the sensor doesn't respond to my presence on a bike, then in my view it's malfunctioning and so I treat it as if it were a flashing red light. I'm pretty good at triggering the sensors, but sometimes it's impossible (whether it's because the pavement's too thick or because you're riding to the start of a time trial on a carbon fiber bike with carbon fiber wheels).
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 19, 2013, 06:13:57 PM

Quote from:  ORC 4511.5
(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so. Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.


Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 19, 2013, 06:52:05 PM
Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.
Tooqk's comment makes it clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane, so if he were in Ohio the bicyclist would be explicitly following the letter of the law by riding wherever the hell he wanted in the lane. That's the whole 4511.05C bit for ya.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 19, 2013, 07:19:02 PM
Thus, when the "Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road" they were in fact breaking the law, since there was no safety issue with hugging the right side of the lane.
Tooqk's comment makes it clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane, so if he were in Ohio the bicyclist would be explicitly following the letter of the law by riding wherever the hell he wanted in the lane. That's the whole 4511.05C bit for ya.

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Russ on February 19, 2013, 09:23:51 PM
It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.

There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway (http://urbanvelo.org/take-your-lane-illustration/). The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes. I don't know how wide the lane in question was, but it was without doubt the same width as in the above illustration or narrower. At that point, if it is too dangerous to ride on the shoulder (IMO usually the safest, but that's the individual cyclist's call to make), then riding in the center of the lane is the safest option as it discourages people who overestimate the width of the lane from trying to pass too closely.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 19, 2013, 09:48:27 PM


There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway (http://urbanvelo.org/take-your-lane-illustration/). The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes. I don't know how wide the lane in question was, but it was without doubt the same width as in the above illustration or narrower. At that point, if it is too dangerous to ride on the shoulder (IMO usually the safest, but that's the individual cyclist's call to make), then riding in the center of the lane is the safest option as it discourages people who overestimate the width of the lane from trying to pass too closely.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks (which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image). 

By the way, I'm all for cyclists rights.  As stated above, I agree they should be accorded the same rights and obligations due other vehicles on the road.  However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.  Apparently they do not have a steel cage, no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.

There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy AND law (as discussed, in certain jurisdictions, but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).  Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: grantmeaname on February 19, 2013, 10:20:26 PM
It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.
No, it's clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane and it's clear the cyclist was riding either in the center or to the right of the center but not in the shoulder. Any other details are ones you made up based only on biases you brought into the conversation.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks
Holy miss the point batman. Even a Town and Country is a little over 90 inches wide, and it's built on a car frame! That doesn't leave room for curb, debris, cyclist, 3 feet, Town and Country, and a margin between the car and the next lane in 12 feet.

Quote
(which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image).
Correction: which clearly don't leave room for sharing, because the cyclist only has 5 inches instead of the statutory 36 inches if the truck is passing within the lane.

Quote
However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.
i. Two sentences ago the linked image was "apparently" making the point that there was plenty of room. So which is it?
ii. "Sharing the road" and "sharing a lane with other drivers passing within the lane" are not the same.
iii. "Sharing the road" is reciprocal, and depends on the behavior of motorists as well as cyclists. It's not motorists' road to share or not with cyclists, it's everyone's road to share with everyone else.

Quote
Apparently they do not have a steel cage
We've been over this already this week (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/top-10-motorcycles-for-smart-people/msg56204/#msg56204).

Quote
no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.
Ignoring for a moment that half of your reasons make no sense... your argument that cyclists should not be allowed in high-speed traffic lanes, while nonsensical, at least starts from a basis of concern for cyclists' safety. So how do you then use that as an excuse to drive in an unsafe manner around cyclists? Doesn't that seem a little like psychosis to you?

Quote
There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy
Sure, as would I. Again, there's the whole "compelling interest in immediate physical safety" thing I mentioned? That doesn't apply to the same degree for a sedan as it does for a bike.

Quote
AND law
That's not the law. Consult, for example, the only posts anywhere on this forum in which anyone has quoted transportation law. They've all been me, they've all been the Ohio Revised Code, and not a one has supported the 'right' of impatient motorists to be yielded to by people in front of them.

Quote
(as discussed, in certain jurisdictions,
No jurisdictions were given but the state of Ohio, which is a counterexample and not a supporting point.

Quote
but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).
"I think X should be the law" is not equivalent to "the law is X". Democracy, people with opinions other than yours, yadda yadda...

Quote
Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?
No. Why is a street different than the interstate? Some key differences:
A 45mph street may have consistent, frequent intersections, causing drivers to expect that they will need to yield and pay attention to other activities going on (most near me do). The interstate does not have intersections.
A 45mph street has a legal requirement that it be built in a way that it is conducive to sharing between all users of the road. The interstate explicitly does not, as bicycles, farm vehicles, and pedestrians are prohibited.
A 45mph street accumulates glass and gravel much more slowly than an interstate highway.
A 45mph street typically lacks rumble strips on the side of the road, which can easily bring down a cyclist. Everything else aside, this feature of the highway makes the highway a much more difficult environment to ride in.
A 45mph street has no statutory minimum speed limit, unlike the interstate. That means that it is physically possible to operate a bicycle at a safe and legal speed on a 45mph street, but not on an interstate.
A 45mph street is able to be legally occupied by cyclists, while an interstate highway is not.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Jack on February 20, 2013, 07:06:57 AM
There wouldn't be room to pass within the lane anyway (http://urbanvelo.org/take-your-lane-illustration/). The linked image is for 12-foot wide lanes.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks (which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image). 

Given that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.

Cyclists have the right, under law [in the state of Georgia -- so that's two counterexamples now], to ride in the road. Motorists have an obligation, under law, to leave a minimum of 3 feet (36 inches) when passing. If they can't safely maintain that distance, then they have to fucking wait!

If you can't deal with that, then I sincerely hope your license gets revoked.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Khao on February 20, 2013, 07:28:30 AM
I was under the impression that the Antimustachian wall of shame and comedy was to make fun of consumer slaves, not to rip each other apart over some state laws!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 20, 2013, 07:37:10 AM
I was under the impression that the Antimustachian wall of shame and comedy was to make fun of consumer slaves, not to rip each other apart over some state laws!

Wrong.



j/k.  It is a forum, a place for people to discuss things.  Conversations would be pretty boring if all responses were "yep, I agree."  I am enjoying the debate from the outside here, as I know for a fact that dragoncar is wrong in my State as well (being a lawyer that occasionally handles accident cases) I am enjoying watching him try to defend his position after being purposely rude (apparently he has no time for courtesy or waiting for cyclists, but plenty of time to respond endlessly to his defenseless position). 

Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Khao on February 20, 2013, 07:44:27 AM
It is indeed a place to discuss things, but I feel this conversation is just pointless and done.

"Don't feed the trolls" as they say ;)

Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: amustache on February 20, 2013, 07:51:09 AM
A few more cents to throw in. The reason we have paved roads in the first place is because of bicyclists (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-was-the-good-roads-movement.htm). Another thing to feel smug and righteous about when riding on a bike.

Okay, not smug and righteous but informed next time someone asks you about your bike-riding habit.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 20, 2013, 08:12:57 AM
It is indeed a place to discuss things, but I feel this conversation is just pointless and done.

"Don't feed the trolls" as they say ;)

Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.

You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: kendallf on February 20, 2013, 12:59:56 PM
You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.

And as the person who got this whole ball rolling, I am going to go get on my bike and ride home.  :-)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Guitarist on February 20, 2013, 01:14:34 PM
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.

I agree that assholes are universal.  However, an asshole with a car is far more dangerous (to others) than one on a bike.  In turn, the one on the bike is more dangerous than an asshole on foot.  Many pedestrians are assholes, but they get the short end of the stick because they can't walk in the road, but many cyclists use the sidewalk.

Not legally, they don't, but courtesy is definitely the best course of action for all people on the road. The delay caused by a bicycle seems longer than it really is because, once a car does pass a bicycle, they quickly catch up to the traffic ahead of them. There was no actual time lost. To quote labreform.org:

"The actual delay to traffic from a bicycle is almost always trivial.  Most traffic is able to pass with no impact other than slowing a bit and perhaps changing lanes.  Occasionally, a passing driver must wait a few seconds in order to fit a gap for safe passing.  Very rarely is the wait as much as 30 seconds.

Remember, the passing driver needs only to slow to the speed of the bicycle.  Typically, the bicycle is traveling at half the speed limit, so the delay is half what it seems.  Then after passing, the driver can go faster in the open space ahead of the bicycle.  Most soon catch up to their earlier place in the traffic queue.  This means the real delay is usually zero.

I often see someone pass me in a huff, and then shortly the brake lights come on as that driver catches up to other traffic.  The motorist will perceive that I caused a delay.  The reality is there was no delay.  The presence of my bicycle simply redistributed the delays already present due to the other traffic.


I follow this logic when driving. I see no need to speed up and waste gas just to brake in a half mile. Screw the idiots who ride my ass while I go the speed limit while in the right or center lanes.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Captain and Mrs Slow on February 20, 2013, 01:37:40 PM
Ley make this very clear, and I never understood the logic of this, but bikes don't belong on the road, they belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area

I'm in Munich next week I'll post some pictures.

I also, if I can do it without hitting the damm cyclist, pictures of suicde alley, a popular but VERY narrow stretch of highway in the mountains where I live (Madrid)  the shoulder is perhaps a bit over a foot wide. How anyone in thier right mind would bike it is beyond me, especially as there is an alternative route where the shoulder is almost a meter wide but nobody takes it.

It gets worse as you head up into the mountains, narrow twisty roads, very popular with both cars trucks and hard core cyclists. My brother in law couldn't believe the numbers of cyclists there, he said there is no way he could make it those hills.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Guitarist on February 20, 2013, 01:42:16 PM
Ley make this very clear, and I never understood the logic of this, but bikes don't belong on the road, they belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area

I'm in Munich next week I'll post some pictures.

I also, if I can do it without hitting the damm cyclist, pictures of suicde alley, a popular but VERY narrow stretch of highway in the mountains where I live (Madrid)  the shoulder is perhaps a bit over a foot wide. How anyone in thier right mind would bike it is beyond me, especially as there is an alternative route where the shoulder is almost a meter wide but nobody takes it.

It gets worse as you head up into the mountains, narrow twisty roads, very popular with both cars trucks and hard core cyclists. My brother in law couldn't believe the numbers of cyclists there, he said there is no way he could make it those hills.

I assume you are willing to fund the worldwide bike lane construction project then, right? :-P
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: DoubleDown on February 20, 2013, 01:48:13 PM
Hopefully the Golden Rule applies to all. I don't want anyone riding my ass or driving unsafely whether I'm on a bike or driving a car. And I should assume a bike rider who is willing to ride down the center of the street going half the speed limit, conditions-and- everyone-else-be-damned, is not going to get the least bit bent out of shape if they had to ride for 10 miles behind a truck or tractor going no more than 4 mph, (completely legally) belching black smoke from its exhaust, and refusing to pull over for the parade of 200 cars and bikes stuck behind it. And remember, you can't pass it on your bike, you must go 4 mph behind it for the entire trip...

There is a third way, between having to take the middle of the lane or having to ride through a dangerous shoulder with broken glass: Safely stop, pull off for 30 secs allowing other to pass, then resume the ride. If you think a driver shouldn't be in such a hurry to get past you going 20 mph in a 45 mph zone, then why are you in such a hurry that you wouldn't sacrifice 30 seconds yourself to pull over?
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Captain and Mrs Slow on February 20, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
More the thought that everyone complains that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk, a bike person collision is a lot less damaging than a bike SUV Kick Ass Truck.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: DoubleDown on February 20, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
bikes belong on a dedicated bike lane next to the sidewalk. Why would someone put bikes and cars in the same area


Just about every day where I live I see cyclists riding uphill on the road with a long line of cars behind them, RIGHT NEXT TO THE WELL-MAINTAINED, DEDICATED BIKE PATH that parallels the road, separated by a sidewalk and grass median. And then they wonder why self-important car drivers have the nerve to get irritated with them and their rights to be on the road.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Russ on February 20, 2013, 02:30:05 PM
More the thought that everyone complains that bikes don't belong on the sidewalk, a bike person collision is a lot less damaging than a bike SUV Kick Ass Truck.

Since you seem to be familiar with everyone "complaining" how bikes don't belong on the sidewalk I'll spare you details, but as a reminder riding on the sidewalk makes bike-SUV-Kickass Truck collisions much more probable than when riding on the road. That's the reason it's illegal most places in the US.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 20, 2013, 02:43:49 PM
Whoo boy... I go away for one day...

It's clear that there wasn't room to pass withing the lane because the cyclist was riding in the center.
No, it's clear that there wasn't room to pass within the lane and it's clear the cyclist was riding either in the center or to the right of the center but not in the shoulder. Any other details are ones you made up based only on biases you brought into the conversation.

Where are you getting this from?  The only information given about the cyclist's position was the following:

Bicyclist stayed put like they owned the road (btw it was 45mph speed limit)

When you "own the road" you ride in the center of the lane.  It is completely reasonable to interpret this as the cyclist riding in the center.  Tooq does not mention whether it would be safe to pass if the cyclist pulled over to the side of the lane.

Yes, because all of us MMM readers drive giant F-250 trucks
Holy miss the point batman. Even a Town and Country is a little over 90 inches wide, and it's built on a car frame! That doesn't leave room for curb, debris, cyclist, 3 feet, Town and Country, and a margin between the car and the next lane in 12 feet.

Why on earth are you talking about giant trucks and minivans?  Tooq does not state the kind of car, and it is unlikely that an MMM reader would have a large vehicle.  It would likely be less than the (apparent) average of 72 inches.

Quote
(which apparently still leave room for sharing on a 12-foot lane, according to the linked image).
Correction: which clearly don't leave room for sharing, because the cyclist only has 5 inches instead of the statutory 36 inches if the truck is passing within the lane.

All I see in the image is two vehicles side by side in a lane, not overlapping.  I didn't see any reference to a 36 inch minimum in the image, but I'm happy to read a source if you have one.  Even assuming a 36 inch minimum, there are many cars small enough to pass safely.  Not sure what the F250 strawman has to do with anything, since we are discussing a specific situation encountered by one of our readers.

Quote
However, the linked image seems to make the point that cyclists are idiots for sharing the road with drivers.
i. Two sentences ago the linked image was "apparently" making the point that there was plenty of room. So which is it?
ii. "Sharing the road" and "sharing a lane with other drivers passing within the lane" are not the same.
iii. "Sharing the road" is reciprocal, and depends on the behavior of motorists as well as cyclists. It's not motorists' road to share or not with cyclists, it's everyone's road to share with everyone else.

"Sharing the road" refers to riding on the same roads as F250s.  Given the hyperbolic dangers cited in the image (which is not necessarily my perspective), it would be foolhardy to put oneself in that danger.

Quote
Apparently they do not have a steel cage
We've been over this already this week (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/top-10-motorcycles-for-smart-people/msg56204/#msg56204).

Quote
no fenders, balancing a single track vehicle, vulnerable to debris, pavement imperfections, and windblast, and are passed with the highest speed differentials.  If that's your argument for giving them the full lane, then that's my argument for why they should not be allowed in high speed traffic lanes at all.
Ignoring for a moment that half of your reasons make no sense... your argument that cyclists should not be allowed in high-speed traffic lanes, while nonsensical, at least starts from a basis of concern for cyclists' safety. So how do you then use that as an excuse to drive in an unsafe manner around cyclists? Doesn't that seem a little like psychosis to you?

Yeah, those "reasons" are cited verbatim from the image you linked to support your argument.  If they are "nonsensical" then maybe you should reconsider the sources you cite.  If they do make sense, then they do imply that it is crazy to go out there under such dangerous conditions.

Quote
There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy
Sure, as would I. Again, there's the whole "compelling interest in immediate physical safety" thing I mentioned? That doesn't apply to the same degree for a sedan as it does for a bike.

Tooq made no indication that it would be unsafe for the cyclist to stop and pull over.  I'd like to give tooq the benefit of the doubt of being a reasonable person who would not wish the cyclist to risk safety.  Nevertheless, tooq's account makes it sound like the cyclist should have pulled over, at least as a matter of courtesy.

Quote
AND law
That's not the law. Consult, for example, the only posts anywhere on this forum in which anyone has quoted transportation law. They've all been me, they've all been the Ohio Revised Code, and not a one has supported the 'right' of impatient motorists to be yielded to by people in front of them.

Well as you can see above it seems likely to me that OH law would have required the cyclist to pull to the right side of the lane for same-lane passing (assuming of course that we aren't talking about a giant F250). 

However, I wonder if we are reading the same thread.  Much of this hubub started when I cited relevant California law as a solitary counterexample to Destron's claim that cyclists never have to pull over as a matter of law:

California Department of Motor Vehicles, CVC 21656, Turning Out of Slow-Moving Vehicles[14]


Quote
(as discussed, in certain jurisdictions,
No jurisdictions were given but the state of Ohio, which is a counterexample and not a supporting point.

See above.  I cited California law early in the thread.


Quote
but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).
"I think X should be the law" is not equivalent to "the law is X". Democracy, people with opinions other than yours, yadda yadda...

Sure, what I can't have an opinion as to what the law should be?


Even if dragoncar isn't trolling on purpose, the fact that he's being rude and is holding is position and defending against the guy from the internet! so furiously just makes this whole discussion a dead-end.

It takes two sides to argue, always.  For every "guy from the internet" there is another "guy from the internet" arguing the opposite point.


You're right of course.  I just enjoy the occasional pointless argument.  I will agree that the name calling is over the line.

Which name calling is that?


I am enjoying the debate from the outside here, as I know for a fact that dragoncar is wrong in my State as well (being a lawyer that occasionally handles accident cases) I am enjoying watching him try to defend his position after being purposely rude (apparently he has no time for courtesy or waiting for cyclists, but plenty of time to respond endlessly to his defenseless position). 

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.  Which position is it that you think I hold?
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 20, 2013, 03:02:13 PM

Which name calling is that?

This one: 

Quote from: jack
ven that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.


Quote from: dragoncar

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.

Ah, so it is only courtesy that is too time consuming for you then.

Quote from: dragoncar
Which position is it that you think I hold?

If you would stop changing your position, it would be easier to tell.  But as far as I can tell, your position was:

Quote from: dragoncar
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 20, 2013, 03:20:32 PM

Which name calling is that?

This one: 

Quote from: jack
ven that that's exactly the opposite of what the image actually conveys, I think we should all just conclude that you're a dumbass and should STFU.

That wasn't me, although I agree it was uncalled for.

Quote from: dragoncar

I doubt I've discussed your state.  I do often wait for cyclists -- usually as a pedestrian who stays on the curb during a walk signal so that I don't get run down when they run red lights.

Ah, so it is only courtesy that is too time consuming for you then.

Which discourtesy?  If you are referring to curtness, or succinctness, I believe there is a difference.

Quote from: dragoncar
Which position is it that you think I hold?

If you would stop changing your position, it would be easier to tell.  But as far as I can tell, your position was:

Quote from: dragoncar
Yeah, and usually the rules for cars is if there are 5 cars behind you then you have to let them pass.
[/quote]

Ok, I haven't changed that position.  That's usually the rule in CA (in my experience, as discussed above).  Apparently OH has a similar rule.  Sure, there may be states with no rules about slow moving vehicles ... I don't know.  Please enlighten us as to the rule in your state.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: capital on February 20, 2013, 03:53:04 PM
There is no double standard here, by the way.  I would fully expect a car going 10-20 mph in a 35 or higher zone to pull over as a matter of courtesy AND law (as discussed, in certain jurisdictions, but I have no qualms saying that such conventions should be codified everywhere).  Would you let a bicycle on the freeway?  If not, why a 45 mph highway?
If you're an American, one of our most time-honored Constitutional rights, so uncontroversial that it wasn't even explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, is freedom of movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law). Unfortunately, in most of the United States, the roads affording this freedom are ill-designed for anyone not in a private automobile. That doesn't mean the right is abrogated. When I lived in San Diego, riding my bicycle on Interstate 5 was part of my daily commute, as the area was built up in an era so car-centered that there are no practical alternate routes available (avoiding the interstate would have added at least 5 miles to my trip). As a result, Caltrans is obligated to open the freeway to bicycles. The same is true through Camp Pendleton, and in many areas throughout the country where there are no alternative routes to freeways.

Most roads in this country are designed with little provision for bicycle transportation. Bicyclists, especially commuters, use 65mph interstates, 45mph highways, and other similarly unpleasant roads because there are no alternative routes to take them where they are going, at least within a reasonable amount of time. In many cases, the arterial road that is the only route in and out of all-too-many neighborhoods in this country has at least a 45mph speed limit. Attempting to ban bicyclists from these roads violates their right of movement, and that's why it was never done, even in a country as insanely car-centered as this.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jp on February 20, 2013, 04:01:30 PM
Quote from: dragoncar


That wasn't me, although I agree it was uncalled for.

I know it wasn't you, the comment was not directed at you.

Quote from: dragoncar

Which discourtesy?  If you are referring to curtness, or succinctness, I believe there is a difference.

I was referring to this comment:

Quote from: dragoncar
I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.

As if it is so time consuming to say, "I don't think that is the case, at least not from my understanding of the law in CA."  Which took me 5 seconds, as opposed the many minutes you have since spent defending.  I assume that if you have time to respond to all these comments, you have an extra 5 seconds to phrase your response in a more friendly way.  Maybe not.

Quote from: dragoncar
Ok, I haven't changed that position.  That's usually the rule in CA (in my experience, as discussed above).  Apparently OH has a similar rule.  Sure, there may be states with no rules about slow moving vehicles ... I don't know.  Please enlighten us as to the rule in your state.

Well, you added that little qualifier of "In California" which is completely different than saying "usually" generally... which implies that the rule applies everywhere, not in one State only and even then under narrow circumstances.  I am not debating the rule with you, I really don't care if it is the rule or not.  I was just pointing out that I was enjoying the debate and I see that you have mutated your initially wide position and will probably continue to narrow the definition of "usually" until it means "almost never" (all while insisting that this was your position all along).

Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: kendallf on February 20, 2013, 05:22:35 PM
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/02/08

Lighten up, people.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Khao on February 20, 2013, 05:39:31 PM
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2012/02/08

Lighten up, people.

Excellent
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: dragoncar on February 20, 2013, 05:55:50 PM
I know it wasn't you, the comment was not directed at you.

OK my bad.

I was referring to this comment:

Quote from: dragoncar
I don't always have time during the working day to add pleasantries when correcting inaccurate legal advice on the internet.

As if it is so time consuming to say, "I don't think that is the case, at least not from my understanding of the law in CA."  Which took me 5 seconds, as opposed the many minutes you have since spent defending.  I assume that if you have time to respond to all these comments, you have an extra 5 seconds to phrase your response in a more friendly way.  Maybe not.

If you must know, I happened to be on a bus, on my way to a meeting, composing the response on my phone while my stop was coming up.  I basically had time to find a relevant counterexample and paste it.  I (perhaps mistakenly) didn't consider that more explanation or pleasantries would be necessary.  Surely you can see that not having time to do something on one day does not imply that I do not have time to do it another day.

Well, you added that little qualifier of "In California" which is completely different than saying "usually" generally... which implies that the rule applies everywhere, not in one State only and even then under narrow circumstances.  I am not debating the rule with you, I really don't care if it is the rule or not.  I was just pointing out that I was enjoying the debate and I see that you have mutated your initially wide position and will probably continue to narrow the definition of "usually" until it means "almost never" (all while insisting that this was your position all along).

By usually, I meant "commonly observed."  I don't think anyone really wants to quibble about dictionary definitions, but that's my subjective intent.  Whenever I've seen a long line of cars behind another car or bike, the rule would seem to apply.  And yes, both Destron and I are in California (Hell A. being a sarcastic twist on L.A. I presume).

We can always be more precise, or add qualifiers to everything we say.  Things that seem clear to one person may be totally different to another (see the discussion above regarding whether the cyclist in front of tooqk4u22 was in the center of the lane).  Some people don't seem to bother reading the entire thread for context, or the entirety of the links they cite.  That's fine, but then I don't see how it's trollish for me to then elaborate.  I usually (there's that word again) find people here well-reasoned, but there's always this aspect to life in forums:

(https://sslimgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png)
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tooqk4u22 on February 21, 2013, 08:59:28 AM
Whoo boy... I go away for one day...

No kidding.   Grant was in a particuliarly snarky mood when responding to my post, maybe he was having a bad day, but he was focused on the technicality of law.

To be clear there was a shoulder that was clear of vehicles and debris for the foreseeable distance and to be honest if the bicyclist was in the center of the road I could have passed him on the right (obviously illegal, unsafe, and I wouldn't do it - but the should was that big).


Hopefully the Golden Rule applies to all. I don't want anyone riding my ass or driving unsafely whether I'm on a bike or driving a car. And I should assume a bike rider who is willing to ride down the center of the street going half the speed limit, conditions-and- everyone-else-be-damned, is not going to get the least bit bent out of shape if they had to ride for 10 miles behind a truck or tractor going no more than 4 mph, (completely legally) belching black smoke from its exhaust, and refusing to pull over for the parade of 200 cars and bikes stuck behind it. And remember, you can't pass it on your bike, you must go 4 mph behind it for the entire trip...

There is a third way, between having to take the middle of the lane or having to ride through a dangerous shoulder with broken glass: Safely stop, pull off for 30 secs allowing other to pass, then resume the ride. If you think a driver shouldn't be in such a hurry to get past you going 20 mph in a 45 mph zone, then why are you in such a hurry that you wouldn't sacrifice 30 seconds yourself to pull over?

DoubleDown nails it for me - if it were me on the bike I would have gone in the shoulder or pulled over if cars backed up to much.  Its a courtesy thing, unfortunately Grant takes the position of righteousness that this single biker apparently did and to me that is indecent.  What if I am driving and I see a large puddle in the road with a biker/pedestrian next to it - legally I can go through the puddle and soak them and be well within the legal view but it would be grossly indecent thing to do.  Is it too much to ask for common courtesy.

Plus as biker why in the world would you want to open yourself up to the vast world of idiots that are easily open to road rage.  Being defensive is also important - when a crosswalk says to walk I don't blindly walk forward without looking both ways - maybe some people like Grant do cause the law says you can - I don't know, not wise to me though.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: destron on February 21, 2013, 10:24:11 AM
I think we can all agree that this discussion is not really constructive anymore at this point! We have discovered that bicycle laws are different in different states (shocking!) and that, in CA, a bicycle has to pull over to let people pass when the following conditions are met:

* There are five or more cars behind it
* You are on a two lane road
* There is too much traffic in the opposing direction to safely pass
* There is a safe place for the bicyclist to pull over

But that in OH (and some other states) there is no requirement to do so.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: tooqk4u22 on February 21, 2013, 10:34:29 AM
I think we can all agree that this discussion is not really constructive anymore at this point! We have discovered that bicycle laws are different in different states (shocking!) and that, in CA, a bicycle has to pull over to let people pass when the following conditions are met:

* There are five or more cars behind it
* You are on a two lane road
* There is too much traffic in the opposing direction to safely pass
* There is a safe place for the bicyclist to pull over

But that in OH (and some other states) there is no requirement to do so.

The CA rules actually sound sensical, which is strange coming out CA,  - although Grant might take liberty with the 4th bullet and say that biker might never feel safe pulling over so therefore the biker is within their right to stay in the lane and let traffic back up forever.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: skyrefuge on February 21, 2013, 11:21:06 AM
I'm imagining a line of 4 cars heading up a mountain, full of fuming drivers who have been stuck behind an 8mph cyclist for 3 miles. In his rearview mirror, the 4th driver spots a car approaching in the distance. "Yes! Finally! As soon as he catches up with us, we will be 5, and they cyclist will have to pull over!!" But, just before the 5th car joins the pack, car #2 turns off onto a side-road to his ranch, and the pack remains at 4.   "FFFFFFUUUUUUCCCKKK!!!!!"

If only they had been in Idaho, where the law says they only need 3 cars.  (see, those Californians ARE A bunch of hippie liberals after all!)

I also imagine all cyclists in California with giant 8-foot-wide outrigger mirrors somehow attached to their bicycles, so that they can properly see past the RV directly behind them and allow them to keep an exact count of the total number of cars trailing them. I bet they can't even sell bicycles in California without such mirrors, because otherwise it would be impossible for cyclists to follow the law.

Anyhow, it's pretty obvious to me that the CA law was written with mountain roads in mind, particularly those which have signed turnoff areas every mile or so. Having just ridden my bicycle over 1000 miles over the length of California's mountains, it seems the law at hand is so rarely applicable for bicycles that it's not even worth talking about. There were plenty of turnouts where I stopped regardless of traffic, just because I'd been climbing a mountain and it was a nice spot to take a break. When going uphill, and not otherwise having a reason to stop, a cyclist can simply slide over into the turnout area, keep riding at his slow pace, and most of the time the line of cars will have gone by before the cyclist reaches the end of the turnout. Only one or two times do I remember pulling over at a turnout and *stopping* where I otherwise would not have stopped. Those were on downhills, to let a demonic logging truck by, even though I actually was not a "slow moving vehicle" in those cases. 

But otherwise, if the road has no shoulder, it probably also doesn't have safe stopping areas even for a bicycle between turnouts, so I would have been fully within the law to grind up the mountain at 4mph with 100 cars behind me for 15 minutes until I got to the next designated turnout a mile later. Of course, that never happened, because it's a made-up situation that never happens, except in the imaginations of people making silly Internet arguments.

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists? It's always useful for people to see the actual setups that someone else is talking about, because often it's a situation entirely outside their personal traffic environment.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: DoubleDown on February 21, 2013, 03:45:48 PM

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists?


Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: jpo on February 22, 2013, 05:46:49 AM
Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44
I would imagine it's the possible danger of a driver pulling into a driveway without checking the bike path ("right hook"). That section of the bike path seems like a glorified sidewalk.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2013, 07:38:52 AM

tooqk and DoubleDown, how about Google Maps/Streetview links to the areas where you were frustrated by cyclists?


Hey thanks for asking! Here's one example of an area that frustrates motorists, rightfully so IMHO. I often bike this part of the W&OD trail, visible to the left. It's a dedicated, two-way bike/jogging trail that goes for about 40 miles. You see cyclists all the time riding up the middle of the road here, with cars piling up behind them (no passing allowed, no shoulder, double yellow line). So why the f*** are the cyclists not utilizing the perfectly suitable and well-maintained bike path, dedicated for their use, in the left of the picture?!! I use it. They deserve the obscenities screamed at them ;-)

I could have picked out one thousand similar bike paths in our area where selfish cyclists will instead take up the road.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

That's a very dangerous section of bike/jogging path due to the multiple driveways that intersect it.  Going at a good clip along there, you are effectively invisible to anyone backing out/into a driveway.  Very likely to have an accident.  Going east, I would only get on the bike path around Shreve Rd once past all the houses - for safety's sake.  As a matter of fact, the bike lane terminates into a sidewalk just a block or so West from the point you provided . . . which means that you would have to dismount your bike, cross the street, and then continue biking on the street on the two lane Virginia lane ANYWAY.

It really looks like they put in a 'bike path' in place of a sidewalk there, without proper consideration for usage of that bike path.  As it stands there, that path is not a safe place to ride.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: skyrefuge on February 22, 2013, 02:26:56 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=38.890039,-77.207505&spn=0.001428,0.001816&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=38.890027,-77.207906&panoid=XvxKFaZ2VF3x9bEawtFN2A&cbp=12,254.88,,0,21.44

Thanks. I agree with the others that that's a very dangerous section of bike path to be riding on, so it makes total sense to me that you would see cyclists using the road there. It's also telling that the short driveway/intersection-filled segment is the exact area you were thinking of (rather than the much longer sections of uninterrupted bike path on either side of that segment), so that's a hint to me that cyclists use the path in general, except in brief sections where they determine that it's safer to be in the road.

It's hard to say what I would do in that situation. I'm pretty sure I would *not* ride on the path there, because it would feel so unsafe to me, but on the other hand, I also don't like being that asshole cyclist (especially when I know the drivers will be fuming to themselves "BUT THERE'S A PATH RIGHT THERE!!!"). It's only a 500 yard section between where the path crosses Virginia and when it turns off it, so depending on how much traffic actually uses the road, I might feel comfortable blasting through that section on the road at 20mph and taking the lane. But if I felt like I was always creating a line of pissed-off drivers behind me, I might find a totally different route.

It looks like that section of path was created as an unfortunate link required to complete this long-distance off-street bike path. The other sections make a lot more sense, following an old railroad line, which means there aren't many crossings. But this segment deviates from the railroad line because they need a way to get cyclists across I-66, and the rail line doesn't have its own bridge (the rail line and I-66 must have never co-existed, or they demolished the rail bridge when building I-66). I guess the designers chose to accept a crappy link rather than no link at all, which is an understandable decision since it's such a short segment. 3-foot-wide on-road bike lanes on both sides of the road going in the direction of traffic would have been a much better solution there but maybe that wasn't in the budget.

Hopefully that perspective helps you at least realize that the cyclists likely have *some* reason for avoiding the path, and they aren't doing it just to piss you off!
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Spork on February 22, 2013, 04:56:54 PM

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2013, 06:44:59 AM

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.

Legally I can bike on the road or the bike path.  I pick the safer route.  Picking the safer route benefits cars and bikes equally. . . nobody wants to get into an accident.  I don't mind slowing down to be safer when biking, but I would have to dismount my bike and walk it to be going slow enough to safely avoid cars backing out at all of those driveways.  That effectively makes the 'bike path' a sidewalk, with the same inherent dangers that a sidewalk has.  There's a reason it's illegal to bike on a sidewalk - it's dangerous for bikers and causes more accidents for cars.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: Spork on February 26, 2013, 08:03:39 AM

I really REALLY don't want to stir crap up.  I'm cyclist friendly.  Really.  I promise.

That said, it sounds odd that no one wants do cycle on a 500 yd section of path because they'd have to slow down and be careful to watch for cars that are hard to see.  All the while, the auto drivers are complaining that they have to slow down and be careful for slow cyclists that are hard to see.

I feel like both sides are making the same arguments here and both thinking the other side is WRONGEDYWRONGWRONG.

Casual observation... moving along now.

Legally I can bike on the road or the bike path.  I pick the safer route.  Picking the safer route benefits cars and bikes equally. . . nobody wants to get into an accident.  I don't mind slowing down to be safer when biking, but I would have to dismount my bike and walk it to be going slow enough to safely avoid cars backing out at all of those driveways.  That effectively makes the 'bike path' a sidewalk, with the same inherent dangers that a sidewalk has.  There's a reason it's illegal to bike on a sidewalk - it's dangerous for bikers and causes more accidents for cars.

I'm not going to argue with you... I have no real dog in this fight.  But I've heard cyclists complain about pedestrians/skaters/etc on bike paths with the exact same arguments as the drivers on the roads.  Yes, the cyclist is legal in both places.  Yes, you might have to walk a bike on that sidewalk, just like a car might have to slow down to 15mph on a road.   I was just trying to add perspective.  Both sides need to get over themselves.
Title: Re: I'm in a car! I have the right of way!
Post by: DoubleDown on February 26, 2013, 10:20:33 AM

Hopefully that perspective helps you at least realize that the cyclists likely have *some* reason for avoiding the path, and they aren't doing it just to piss you off!

Can't let this thread die yet!! ;-)

To be clear, I do bike on that section of the path, so I understand the cyclist perspective. It's not evident from Google Maps, but there is a steep incline there, which is why I chose it as an example. I've never seen a cyclist able to go faster than maybe 8 mph up that hill, even the hardcore ones. That's why I don't ride on the street uphill there. I think to do so is pretty selfish given the adjacent bike path. It's easy to avoid hazards like a car exiting the driveway when biking 7-8 mph uphill. And to be clear, there are driveways and hazards on the street to the right, just like the bike path on the left.

But I can't fault your perspective or tolerance for hazard as you see it. I just wouldn't be surprised as a cyclist if a motorist was pissed off in this situation. And I do get frustrated when I'm a motorist there and a cyclist is taking up the road going uphill.